Joseph Wilson Namechecks TPM on Larry King Live
While many have disparaged Mr. King's show as being largely fluffy, I'd like to give credit where credit is due: Mr. King gave Wilson generous space to provide concise, detailed answers to the questions that most of us have been chewing on for weeks, if not months and years. This is important in the fact that in the span of one hour, Mr. King allowed these talking points to penetrate a large, wide-ranging spectrum of American households.
Last night was King at his best (rare as the Ivory-billed Woodpecker), delivering decent, well-placed questions and actually allowing the guest to respond. King is known for moving things along when a guest goes off the rails or he loses interest in the topic. It was clear from last night's show that King actually cares about this as he gave Wilson chance to present himself to the American people at a near perfect time.
Here's the section that where he pointed to TPM:
KING: New York City, hello.
CALLER FROM NEW YORK CITY: Ambassador Wilson, any idea who forged the yellow cake documents and the motivation? These were not third rate forgeries.
WILSON: Well, actually Dr. ElBaradei said they were obvious forgeries and his deputy said that a two hour search on Google would have told even a novice forensic analyst that they were forgeries. So, they were not great forgeries, should not have fooled the intelligence community or the White House for that matter.
I don't -- there has been a series of articles published in the Italian magazine or the Italian newspaper "La Republica" just this week. Some of those articles have been (INAUDIBLE [I think he said "accounted"]) in some American reporting.
There are a couple of web blogs, particularly Talking Points Memo and the Left Coaster that have also taken a good look and done a study into what they think some of the possible sources of the documents might have been.
-------------
Its a testament to the work that those on TPM and other blogs when not a single major news source is sited as being on top of this by the man who is at the center of this whole nightmare.
Unfortunately, it only takes half an hour to get things back in line with the Lowest Common Denominator Media we're all used to. A "panel discussion" on the day's events that included Matthew Cooper, takes all the fire out the Wilson interview and submerges it in bullshit punditry. Cooper was a nervous wreck, giving terse answers as he fiddled with his earpiece and looked off camera (at his lawyer, no doubt). Sen. Shelby gave feeble spin while Sen. Feinstein was her usual "fiesty liberal" self. Round out this snoozefest with Michael Isikoff who took a more sartorial approach.
A choice excerpt:
KING: Before we talk about what happened in the Senate today, Matthew Cooper, what's your assessment of what Ambassador Wilson had to say?
MATTHEW COOPER, TIME MAGAZINE: Well, I guess I wasn't totally surprised. He's obviously been critical of the administration, and they of him at various times. I can't say I was shocked by that. We'll see where this case goes, Larry. It certainly had a lot of interesting turns.
-------------
Gee, Larry, life sure is funny, ain't it? Why even have this guy on if he's going to turn out hamstrung answers like that. Oh, wait, this is CNN after all, a prime LCD Media Outlet, one that cannot deliver reporting or commentary without "added value" smeared all over the lens. Granted, Cooper is enmeshed in this and that's one thing but the overall effect of this panel discussion is one of "ho-hum, just another day in Washington" kind of crap. Michael Isikoff made sure to underline this point with this exchange:
KING: Michael Isikoff, are we ever going to get to the bottom of this?
ISIKOFF: Good question. One of the problems here is as much as the Democrats want an investigation and obviously are pulling maneuvers like the one today, they don't have subpoena power.
They can't convene hearings. It requires a Republican acquiescence. And unless the results of next year's election changes anything, that's going to be the way it is for the duration of this term. There undoubtedly will be a field day, some day, for historians, but whether we'll see real-time hearings about what happened here is far from clear.
-------------
Actually, Larry, its an awful question as it implies that this is just some tediousness and Isikoff takes this watermelon and punts it toward the history section of Barnes and Noble. As the only one with any potential for insight, this is disgraceful. Luckily, most folks had probably already gone for "My Name is Earl" or the like.
You can check out the transcipt here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/01/lkl.01.html
Last night was King at his best (rare as the Ivory-billed Woodpecker), delivering decent, well-placed questions and actually allowing the guest to respond. King is known for moving things along when a guest goes off the rails or he loses interest in the topic. It was clear from last night's show that King actually cares about this as he gave Wilson chance to present himself to the American people at a near perfect time.
Here's the section that where he pointed to TPM:
KING: New York City, hello.
CALLER FROM NEW YORK CITY: Ambassador Wilson, any idea who forged the yellow cake documents and the motivation? These were not third rate forgeries.
WILSON: Well, actually Dr. ElBaradei said they were obvious forgeries and his deputy said that a two hour search on Google would have told even a novice forensic analyst that they were forgeries. So, they were not great forgeries, should not have fooled the intelligence community or the White House for that matter.
I don't -- there has been a series of articles published in the Italian magazine or the Italian newspaper "La Republica" just this week. Some of those articles have been (INAUDIBLE [I think he said "accounted"]) in some American reporting.
There are a couple of web blogs, particularly Talking Points Memo and the Left Coaster that have also taken a good look and done a study into what they think some of the possible sources of the documents might have been.
-------------
Its a testament to the work that those on TPM and other blogs when not a single major news source is sited as being on top of this by the man who is at the center of this whole nightmare.
Unfortunately, it only takes half an hour to get things back in line with the Lowest Common Denominator Media we're all used to. A "panel discussion" on the day's events that included Matthew Cooper, takes all the fire out the Wilson interview and submerges it in bullshit punditry. Cooper was a nervous wreck, giving terse answers as he fiddled with his earpiece and looked off camera (at his lawyer, no doubt). Sen. Shelby gave feeble spin while Sen. Feinstein was her usual "fiesty liberal" self. Round out this snoozefest with Michael Isikoff who took a more sartorial approach.
A choice excerpt:
KING: Before we talk about what happened in the Senate today, Matthew Cooper, what's your assessment of what Ambassador Wilson had to say?
MATTHEW COOPER, TIME MAGAZINE: Well, I guess I wasn't totally surprised. He's obviously been critical of the administration, and they of him at various times. I can't say I was shocked by that. We'll see where this case goes, Larry. It certainly had a lot of interesting turns.
-------------
Gee, Larry, life sure is funny, ain't it? Why even have this guy on if he's going to turn out hamstrung answers like that. Oh, wait, this is CNN after all, a prime LCD Media Outlet, one that cannot deliver reporting or commentary without "added value" smeared all over the lens. Granted, Cooper is enmeshed in this and that's one thing but the overall effect of this panel discussion is one of "ho-hum, just another day in Washington" kind of crap. Michael Isikoff made sure to underline this point with this exchange:
KING: Michael Isikoff, are we ever going to get to the bottom of this?
ISIKOFF: Good question. One of the problems here is as much as the Democrats want an investigation and obviously are pulling maneuvers like the one today, they don't have subpoena power.
They can't convene hearings. It requires a Republican acquiescence. And unless the results of next year's election changes anything, that's going to be the way it is for the duration of this term. There undoubtedly will be a field day, some day, for historians, but whether we'll see real-time hearings about what happened here is far from clear.
-------------
Actually, Larry, its an awful question as it implies that this is just some tediousness and Isikoff takes this watermelon and punts it toward the history section of Barnes and Noble. As the only one with any potential for insight, this is disgraceful. Luckily, most folks had probably already gone for "My Name is Earl" or the like.
You can check out the transcipt here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/01/lkl.01.html
Advertisement
Its a testament to the work that those on TPM and other blogs when not a single major news source is sited as being on top of this by the man who is at the center of this whole nightmare.
Yay for blogs!
This was a great post, and I think more evidence of just how relevant and vital the blogosphere is becoming. We are really in the midst of a revolution right now.
Just contrast the superficial coverage we see at CNN, for example, with what we see/hear/read just on TPMCafe alone. It's no contest.
Maybe King will start having bloggers on his show, for some real commentary. (Oh, forgot, they're partisan. Not "objective" like real reporters.)
November 2, 2005 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am no particular fan of Larry King, but he did well by Joe Wilson, and Wilson knows how to do the talking head TV stuff like a professional.
I agree that after Wilson's time was over, it was a snooze. Isikoff is so full of himself and so self-satisfied that I can hardly bear to watch him. Cooper did look pretty scared
Tonight Wilson was on Countdown and Olbermann gave him the same courtesy, letting him make his points. Maybe the great public out there is beginning to take this story in.
November 2, 2005 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Olberman is doing a really good job.
November 2, 2005 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether we like Larry King or not I think it was refreshing to see Ambassador Wilson give props to Josh and the site on a high profile show. Not only has Josh been doing great work on the issue but so has Larry Johnson. They are totally deserving of the recognition...
November 2, 2005 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the great post covering this Wilson/King interview.
Joe Wilson exhibits the true art of statesmenship so lacking in today's dialog.
November 3, 2005 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did someone say fluff? Oh boy. All the callers to Wilson were sympathetic toward him, not one tough question asked of him the entire time he was on the show. Gotta love it!
I'm really not loving Wilson repeating that his wife was not involved. We've got the CPD reports officer testifying that she offered up his name, and her sending a memo to the Deputy Chief of the CPD blabbering about why he should be sent. If Wilson really got picked by the CIA's knowledge of his "great work" then there would have been no need for Mrs. Wilson's husband-push.
She was there to convene the meeting when Wilson met up at the CIA. She was there when he was debriefed. She was there to tell him sweet nothings in his ear before he wrote his op-ed, such as the source of the intelligence report he had been sent to check up on. The CIA officers say they never told him the source or details of it, yet somehow he knew. It was not known publicly what foreign intelligence service the report came from, so how did Wilson know?
Nope, Mrs. Wilson is totally not involved here...
Should we investigate Mrs. Wilson for leaking classified material to her husband? No! Double standards are fun!
Let's not even get into the fact that Wilson's whole premise for writing his famous op-ed was completely wrong. Not only that, but there was no need for him to leak that stuff publicly. He could have asked his wife to find out for him if the VP had gotten his report, or what the CIA had assessed about his report.
Ah, ah, ah. If he would have done that, he would have found out the truth, that the VP had not been briefed on his report because the CIA didn't give a damn about his report because it was, in every sense of the word, a boondoggle. The INR told the CIA that it would accomplish nothing to send him to Niger, and in the end, it didn't. They were back to square one after his trip.
All of this Wilson could have found out if he had actually been interested in the answers he posed in his op-ed. All of them. He would have found out that he had in fact been ignored, and that the president and VP were not aware of his meaningless report. That the intelligence community at the time, except the INR, stood fully behind the president's SOTU statement.
Wilson could have known about all of this! His wife works at the CIA!
That is why it is important to note that his wife works at the CIA, because it shows that this whole op-ed, leaking BS to the press, was all a calculated political hack effort rather than anything else.
His basic premise was false, and he could have figured out it was false by having his CIA wife figure it out for him. That was never the aim, the aim was trying to start a scandal to get Bush.
Wilson claimed that his wife never would have suggested to send him to Niger, with their two young children to look after and all that. Really? So why did the CPD send him then? Why did he agree? The INR said it wasn't necessary, so did other intelligence analysts. Why did the CPD push for it? Why did Mrs. Wilson lobby for him to be selected for the mission?
See, these are all things that no "hard-hitting" journalist has even asked him anything about. All these facts show that Wilson and his wife were conducting a calculated political operation, and that Wilson needs to distance his wife from all of this as much as possible for his "victim" characterization to hold up.
And all of you are buying it like candy at Walmart.
November 4, 2005 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon everyone, admit it, TROLL is right, we're being conned by these modern day Rosenbergs!
Thank you, TROLL for saving all of us from the truth!
November 4, 2005 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink